Client notes
These remarks came after a finished piece of work. Each one names the reading, mapping, setup, or walkthrough involved. We kept one reservation in the set on purpose: not every visitor wanted a local ledger instead of a live wall of charts.
The brief named our archive button as a first-day curiosity. We had been citing the announcement spike in board slides. After the reading we stopped, which was uncomfortable and correct.
I wanted a live dashboard. They refused to connect to anything we could not copy onto a laptop. The ledger they helped us keep is uglier than what I pictured and we can finally answer who came back in week three.
We spent a Thursday afternoon on one cohort: people who saw the new export in the same week. The recap was two pages. I still keep it clipped to the release calendar.
Mapping the May note took longer than writing the note. Two of five claims had no matching action in our files. We rewrote June in shorter verbs.
A longer note: the May archive button
A document-product team asked for a feature adoption reading after their board slides had already used the announcement-week spike. The local files showed the archive action clustered on the first day and almost nowhere in week three, aside from two people on the shipping list. The brief was eight pages. The uncomfortable sentence was the first one.
They did not ask us to redesign the button. They took the three-window structure and used it on the following export. That second reading was not ours; they ran it internally with the same stamps. That is the outcome we prefer.
